So they’re not quite as ridiculous as the town-hall crashers and Sarah Palin, but what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a failure of logic:

“I’m boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care,” said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods “several times a week.”

“While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn’t seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit,” said Lent.

I’m beginning to believe that, for the purposes of the health care debate, we should use the “Athenian” version of free speech: Yeah, you can say what you want, but don’t expect us to not heckle you out of the Assembly once you make a fool of yourself. (This does, of course, entail not lambasting those who attempt to engage in good-faith dialogue and debate for things they didn’t say.)

What bothers me most is the assumption that because he disagrees with their views, Mackey is obviously doing nothing more than promoting the status quo — which, by extension, means he is actively trying to harm Americans by writing an op-ed. I think we’ve been seeing this mindset for some time now, on more issues than just health care: that a disagreement about means entails a disagreement about ends,* and that therefore anyone who disagrees with you cannot be acting in good faith. Because their arguments and alternatives are proposed in bad faith, one need not engage with or listen to them or their proposals. (In fact, there’s no need for discussion or consideration at all! What’s up with this whole “legislative branch” and “deliberative body”** crap, anyway?)

*For the purposes of the above, I’m defining “ends” as broadly as possible. For example: “We should try to avoid economic collapse”; “The present health care and health insurance system is not functioning properly and should be altered so that it does”; “Our foreign policy should be one that ensures America’s security”; etc.

**This is not to imply that I actually believe Congress behaves like a deliberative body. Just that, in theory, it should.

1. It exposes leftists to the possibility that many of the cultural artifacts that they adopt are the work of people who do not share their world view.

2. It offers an opportunity for Conservatives to vote with their wallets in defense of freedom of expression and a free market.

3. It gives Conservatives who adhere to a more natural life style the opportunity to show that they have been here all along and are not simply so easily lead as the liberals who place the policy preference of the day above nutrition.

We need to get the word out that Whole Foods is a responsible ally in the culture war. Leftists follow herd instincts towards political conformity. People with large disposable incomes have for too long wandered along with this herd. Issues such as the above are, to use the President’s language, teachable moments. Our message should be, you can’t have your lifestyle choices without markets and political/economic freedom.

Just realize that each American have a right to their opinion, and Mackey is not exception. I laud the CEO of Whole Foods for making his known public, and agree with him on numerous key points. His opinion is not set in stone – simply a viable alternative, in my opinion.

Although Obama’s plan is relatively socialistic, an out-of-control medical system and drug companies’ plans are tainted with pressure from lobbyists representing a system that WILL help bankrupt America if we are not careful.

Where is true free choice in Obama’s plan? Where is our right to choose the health care practitioner of our choice without the mandate of AMA approved MDs? Obama says “doctor of choice”, but that is not good enough for me.

There is a much broader spectrum to “alternative medicine” than simply accupuncture or chiropractics. We have PROOF that natural health programs can in fact reverse chronic illness without drugs, chemicals, surgery or radiation… but “they” [the interests of “big pharma” and the AMA] have a lot to lose if truly natural health programs are funded, that cost much less. http://www.healingnews.com

I don’t understand why it is so hard for people on both sides to understand that attacking those who are acting in good faith is counterproductive, as it makes it impossible to even have a civil conversation about issues that need addressing.

I repeatedly pointed this out to my friends during the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war. I too opposed the invasion and the war, but I knew that the most agregious attacks on the former administration and the war effort would be paid back in spades the moment a Democrat was elected president. Unfortunately, my instincts appear to have been all too correct.

“I repeatedly pointed this out to my friends during the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war. I too opposed the invasion and the war, but I knew that the most agregious attacks on the former administration and the war effort would be paid back in spades the moment a Democrat was elected president. Unfortunately, my instincts appear to have been all too correct.”

I couldn’t agree more, Robert. But, what do you think it is in American political discourse that encourages this?

I realize that politics in America has always been a divisive business, but it has gotten to the point that it is tearing at the very fabric of our society.

Personally, I think the internet is partly to blame because it allows people to live in their own little bubbles with little or no contact with anyone who might have a differing view. If you don’t ever have a civil conversation with someone who has a different opinion from yours then you eventually come to think that your world view is the only reality.

Lemme throw some cold water on the progressive “TRAITOR!” talk directed at Whole Foods for a moment: how many people actually think that deeply about where they get their food? Or more accurately, how many people can afford to on a regular basis?

And I say that as someone who has The Omnivore’s Dilemma on my bookshelf…

What you seem to be missing here is that Mackey wrote his op-ed representing Whole Foods’ position on health care. “Whole Foods” is in the title and throughout the op-ed, and in his signature line as CEO of Whole Foods. It is also posted on his CEO of Whole Foods blog. So if you are a customer of Whole Foods who supports health care reform and a public option – as many Whole Foods customers do (see boycott), Mackey has just announced that Whole Foods is coming out in opposition and using YOUR MONEY to fund a political campaign against your beliefs. Quite obviously and logically, you need to immediately stop giving your money to a company that is using it to fight against your beliefs. Mackey is free to speak all he wants, no one is stopping him. I support his right to speak freely and as much as he wants. But he’s not entitled to the money in my wallet. I am similarly free to take my business elsewhere if I choose, and it is perfectly logical for me to do so.

Basho — Mackey may have written the op-ed as the views of the man who is CEO of Whole Foods, but not as the views of Whole Foods. His title for the piece (as it is on his blog) is simply, “Health Care Reform” — but title and byline are ultimately up to the paper’s editors, not Mackey. If the title offends you, complain to the Wall Street Journal.

As for its appearance on his blog, hosted on the company’s website: he only posted it there after the controversy erupted, and even a cursory glance at it should make clear that the aim is to put the unedited submission to the WSJ on the record in the interests of clarifying his intent. Part of the purpose of his post is to explicitly distance the company from his personal views.

This is what I don’t get: how does Mackey writing an op-ed constitute “Whole Foods … using YOUR MONEY to fund a political campaign against your belief”?

So: if you’re boycotting Whole Foods because its CEO opposes (in a sane, potentially constructive tone) Obama’s health care reform proposals, you really ought to be boycotting every such company.

Wow. What happened to our United States of America ? Is it now against the law to voice ones opinion ? Obviously, if one person can be silenced by the opposition rising up against that person for merely voicing his opinion, we have a larger problem on our hands than we think.

How many more Americans will be silenced in this manner ?

Threats abound. Insurance companies are being coerced into virtual silence with investigations.

It seems obvious that if ONE person will receive this much opposition from so many people, there must be a catalyst that raises that much anger. I commend Mr. Mackey for voicing his opinion.

We must not give up our freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition. Our very liberty is being threatened.